Governance of the judiciary has long been marked by a level of public impenetrability that is reinforced by judicial independence. However, the institution is also premised on a political criterion: upholding public confidence. Given this, what happens when judges are alleged to have failed to meet their duties? Judicial complaints and discipline processes may be triggered, involving review of potential misconduct and perhaps recommendation or imposition of a remedy up to and including removal. The shape such processes take varies around the world. What if any commonalities might there be among jurisdictions given each presents a unique socio-legal context, including different dominant or clashing political agendas informing the design and implementation of judicial disciplinary procedures?